LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



Vol3 789 093 8 



pH8^ 



Sale of Arms to French AcjiNTS. . 



or y 




t( 
OF IOWA, 

In the Senate of the United States 

FEBRUARY 14 and 15, 1872. 



^M 



HONEST ADMINISTRATION VINDICATED-NO VIOLATION OF IN- 
TERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS. 



The Senate having under coTisIderatiou the resolution of Mr. Sujiner to inquire 
into the purchases of arms and ordnance stores by agents of France- 
Mr. HARLAN said ; 

Mr. Pkesident ; I shall not detain the Senate long. I desire, however, to state 

a fact or two. I do not ihink this inquiry has been brought forward in the spirit of 

friendship to the Administration, nor of friendship to the parties to whom reference 

is made. I think this will become very clear from an examination of the facts. 

Mr. SUMNER. The Senator will pardon me ; I made no reference to any party. 

SENATORIAL ASSISTANCE TO FRANCE- 

Mr. HARLAN. We will see how that is as we proceed. V.'e all know from infer 
mation derived outside of this Chamber that the French Government have engaged ia 
an investigation to ascertain whether certain of their officers have defrauded their 
treasury. It is allege 1 that they bought arms in the United States for the public ser. 
vice in France, *and that the amount of money furnished to these French, agents has 
not been properly accounted for to the French Government by those agents; and 
here is the foundation of this inquiry. An emissary of the representative of the 
French Government at Washington, acting on instructions derived from his superior, 
has been making efforts to ascertaia whether he can derive from the records of our 
Government sufficient evidence to implicate and prove the rascality of one of their 
employees, and has been, as I infer from the papers presented, sufficiently adroit to 
drag into this controversy a Senator on this floor, and is about to secure the co- opera- 
tion of the Senate of the United States in aid of that investigation on the part of the 
French Government. 

This, I suppose, is the origin of this proceeding. Had Fraiice been able to settle 
satisfactorily with her agents in New York who were deputed tor the purchase of arms, 
this resolution would never have heen introduced into the Senate ; but one Marquis 
Charabrun has been unable to secure the information he desired ; he is unable to 
serve the French Government as effectually as he desires ; he is on terms of friendship 
with members of this body, and is able to enlist their interposition in his favor. If 
this proposed mvestifalion should enable him to prove that the agents of the French 
Government have acted wrongfully, of course he will secure his meed of praise from 
his own Government. 

THE LAW AND THE FACTS. 

Now let us see what the facts are in this case. In the report of the chief of ord. 
nance, dated Jtr.uary 23, 1872, we have the following statement of facts connected 
wi^ii the sale of arms by the United States : 



■ W 






" At the close of the war of the rebellion this Department found itself in possession 
of large quantities of cannon, small arms, and other ordnance stores no longer re- 
quired, and which it was to the interest of the United States to dispose of, because 
either of their perishable character, the constant expense of their care and preservij- 
tion, or their obsolete patterns." 

Here is the origin of these'sales : . 

"At first sales were made by auction, but subsequently (July 20, 18SS) Congress 
passed a l:L^ giving the Secretary of War authority to cause to be sold, at public or 
private sale, after due public notice, the old cannon, arms, and other ordnance stores 
which are damaged or otherv/ise unsuitable for the United States military service, or 
for the militia of the United States, and to cause the net proceeds of such sales, after 
paying all proper expenses of sale and transportation to the place of sale, to be de- 
posited in the Treasury of the United States." 

Now, Mr. President, these sales were made under the direction of Congress, In 
the first instance the sales were made at public outcry to the highest bidder ; but 
Congress, in its wisdom, on the 20th of July, 1868, directed that these sales might be 
made either publicly or privately, placing the discretion in that respect within the 
official discretion of the Secretary of War. The report proceeds to say : 

'' And since the passage of this act ordnance and ordnance stores have been dis- 
posed of to individuals at 'private sale,' as provided by the law, except in a few in- 
etances when ealcB at auction were deemed preferable and to the interest of the &6V- 
ernment." 

Again : 

" It has been the practice to entertain any and all applications to buy frem indi' 
viduals unless some reason for declining was known to this Department. For example' 
about half an hour before the time fixed for opening the bids for the purchase of 
Springfield and Enfield muskets, in October, 1870, I was shown £). dispatch from a 
member of the house of E. Remington & Sous, stating that they were agents of the 
French Government, and authorized to purchase arms for it. I postponed opening 
the bids, and immediately showed the dispatch to you" — 

The Secretary of War — 

"and you promptly directed me to suspend the sale, and not to entertain any bids 
from E, Remington & Sons for arms," &c. 

Now, Mr. President, an impartial observer, I apprehend, would be surprised if told 
that that statement is in the very document from which the honorable Senator 
from Massachusetts read, charging this Government with the sale of arms to the 
French Government, or to the known agent of the French Government. We liave 
here the official statement of a sworn officer of the Government, the chief of the 
ordnance department, that no such sale did take place, that the department sold in- 
differently to private parties who offered the best and an acceptable bid without in- 
quiry, unless they had reason to believe that the bidder or bidders were the agents of 
a belligerent Power at war with another at peace with the United States. Whenever 
they had reason to believe that, the sale was suspended. 

THE CITIZENS RIGnT TO BUT AND SELL. 

I know it may be said that everybody must have known, from public events noto- 
rious to the whole reading public, that these arms would go largely into the hands of 
one Or the other of these belligerents ; but will it be pretended that the United States 
has not the right to sell its surplus arms to anybody because two great nations are at 
wa.r? Must we retain this vast armament in our armories and arsenals until they 
rust and become worthless because other nations at peace with us are at war with 
each other ? It will not be pretended by any reader of international law that private 
citizens did not have the perfect right to sell arms to either France or Prussia during 
the existence »f a war between those two great nations. Private parties unquestion- 
ably had the right to sell them and take their hazard on the delivery ; but the right 
to sell will not be called in question. The only pertinent point of inquiry, then, is 
whether the Government of the United States did knowingly sell to either belligerent- 
The chief of cidtanoe, under whose .supervisien these sales were made, says in an 



J . '"<> 

official commuQieation to Congress that such sales were not made ; that they were 
made to private individuals, but not to either of these Governmenta, or to a known 
agent of either of them. 

THE SALES MADE IX PURSUANCE OF ESTABLISHED POLICY. 

But, Mr. President, political capital is tought to be made out of the fact that some 
of these sales occurred after the war between France and Prussia commenced. I 
hold in my hand the document from which the honorable Senator read for the pur- 
pose, as it seemed to me, of making the impression that these sales began and were 
carried on in aid of France against Prussia. If the Senator had turned to the pecoad 
page of the document he would have seen that these sales began as early as March, 
1865. Here is the record of a long list of sales made during that year, bringing them 
up to the close of the year; and beginning again with the year 1806, I find a list of 
sales made, with the names of the parties and the dates of sale, and the amount of 
■money received, running through that year up to the beginning of 1867 ; then page 
after page of sales made during the year 1867 up to the beginning of 1868^ then 
numerous pages of recorded sales for the year 1868, and again for 1869, for 1870, and 
for 1871, covering a period of six years ; showing that these sales began in 1865, when 
the States of Germany and France were at perfect peace. And because this Govern- 
ment did not suspend the sales of arms and ordnance stores to private parties during 
the continuance of a brief war which continued but a few months, this charge is 
sought to be made against the Government of the ¥nited States of unjustifiable 
interference. 

Mr. CONKLING. Will the Senatc^r allow me a moment right there ? 

Mr. HARLAN. Certainly. 

Mr. CONKLING. To show him how true what he is saying is, let me refer to the 
fact that on page S of this report, as early as June, 1868, he will find a large sale of 
muskets, over four .thousand at one time, to E. Remington & Sons ; and as Mr. 
Remington is my neighber, as I have known him long and his father before him, I 
beg in the same connection to say that he does not deserve the way in which he has 
been spoken of, and that he is no*; known in his own country or in Europe as aa 
agent of France. On the contrary, long years before this war began, Mr. Remington 
was, his father, Eliphalet Remington, before him was, and his brothers with him are, 
large manufacturers and dealers in arms, and not with France, but with many other 
and more distant nations of the earth. Long before this war occurred he had traiuh 
actions and contracts of this sort. 

Messrs. Remington & Sons had their status with the Government and in the cohb- 
try as very large manufacturers of arms themselves^ as very large purchases of arms 
in the markets of foreign countries, which it will turn out in this investigation they 
sold and had been for a long time selling at home and in foreign countries before the 
Franco-Prussian war began, after that war had concluded, and while that war wa« 
raging. And I want at this moment, as part of the admirable statement the Senator 
is making, to call attention to the fact, stronger than he states it, to show that lie 
Government was in no sense upsn its guard in respect of these gentlemen, and was 
not dealing with them at all in the character of agents of France or agents of anybody 
else. 

[At this point Mr. Harlan yielded to an adjournment.] 



THURSDAY, February 15, 1872. 

AUTHORITY TO SELL ARMS. s 

The Senate resumed the consideration of the same subject. 

Mr. HARLAN. Mr. President, it is charged in this resolution and prean^i^ 
when stripped of all unnecessary verbiage, that the United States has soldarmtto 



the Government of France in violation of our duty as a neutral, France arm 
Germany both being friendly Powers to us and being at the time engoged iu a war 
with each other. It is charged, secondly, that the proceeds of these sales have EOt 
been properly accounted for to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. 
When I last h-ad the honor of addressiiig the Senate on this subject I produced the 
record of the War Department for the purpose of showing that these sales began as 
early as March, 1365, and had progressed uninterruptedly to the present date, and I 
might add are still progressing ; that they were made under authority of law, in the 
first instance at public outcry to the highest bidder, and afterward either at public 
sale or to private individuals, and that those sales to private individuals v/ere au- 
thorized by law. I ask the Secretary now to read the statute to which I refer. 
The Chief Clerk read as follows : 

Joint resolution directing the Secretary of War to sell damaged or unserviceable 
arms, ordnance, and ordnance stores. 

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, 
auiiorized aud directed to cause to be sold, after offer at public sale on thirty days' 
notice, in such manner and at such times and places, at public or private sale, as he 
may deem most advantageous to the public inttrest, the old cannon, arms, and other 
ordnance stores now in possession of the War Department wliich uie damaged or 
otherwise unsuitable for the United States military service, or for the militijs of the 
United States, and to cause the net proceeds of such sales, after paying all proper 
■expenses of sale and transportation to the place of sale, to be deposited in the 
Treasury of the United States. 

ApprvUVHD, July 20, 1868. 

It Vt-ill be observed that this statute was enacted July 20, 18c8, two years before 
the commencement of the war between France and Prussia. I produced also the 
records of the Department to show tkat no sales had been made by the United States 
to the Government of France ; that none had been made to ^ known agent of the 
Government of France ; that so soon as it became apparent to the War Department 
that a purchaser was acting tor the Government of France, contemplated sales to s 
liim were suspended. I have already stated, what I now repeat, though it will not 
probably be called in question, that the citizens of the United States have a right 
sunder the law of nations to sell arms to belligerents. The fact of the existence of 
war between two foreign States, France and Prussia, in no way curtailed the right 
of merchants in the United States to sell arms to the people of either country. If 
they attempted to deliver the arms in the port of a belligerent, of course they took 
their own hazard, running-the risk of confiiCaiion for the introduction of contraband 
■of war if captured by the other belligerent on the high seas. 

NO VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY. 

I apprehend it will not be called in question that the Government of the United 
Slates had a perfect right to sell its property to its own citizens, and when this sale 
should have been completed that those citizens had the full and complete control 
over that property, and would have the same right to hold or to sell at heme or 
abroad as if they had manufactured it in their own workshops. 

If these statements be true, and the reference to international law be correct, in 
■what respect is the Government of the United States culpable for making these sales ? 
It may be said that the Government could not have avoided the knowledge that such ar- 
ticles of merchandise would not have been sought by citizens unless they had con 
templated their sale for military uses. But if this would conclude the Government, 
it w«uld reduce the United States to the necessity of giving indirect aid to the one or 
the other of these belligerents by refusing to sell that which it had a perfect right to 
sell to private parties under its own law and under the international code. This 
yolicy would cause us to s-uffer for the time beiiig if sales were suspended for such a 
reason to liio amount of the deterioration of fhe valne of these arms for the beneSt 



of the opposing belligerent. This loss on our part neither belligerent would har'e a 
right to require on the ground that the arms so disposed of might find their way 
through legitimate channels, in harmony with the international code, to the one or 
the other of these belligerent forces. 

Oq that point I desire to state a fact which is sustained by the records cf the War 
Department, that at the time these sales were going on the representative cf the 
Prussian Government near this Government applied for the suspension of Ealea until 
German houses in the United States should have an opportunity to put in bids, and 
on his request these sales were suspended and bids put in. They happened not to be 
accepted, for the reason that thei'e were higher bids, and the sale was awarded to the 
highest bidder. I mention this fact for the purpose of showing that Prussia under- 
stood the international law as I have stated it, that the Government of the United 
States had a right to sell its surplus arms to its citizens, and that those citizens would 
have a right to dispose of them after the purchase as merchandise to whom they 
chose, whether at home or abroad. 

PROCEEDS OF SALES PROPERLY ACCOUNTED FOR. 

Deeming that this branch of the subject has been sufficiently disposed of for the 
present, T come to the second : that the proceeds of these sales have not been pro- 
perly accounted for by the War Department to the Treasury Department. It is stated 
that the Secretary of War reports that the sale of arms for the fiscal year beginning 
the 1st day of July, 1870, and ending tfte 80th day of June, 1871, amounted to $10,- 
000,000, and that the only credits found on the books of the Treasury amount to but 
$8,286,131.70. I think I shaH be able to show that the honorable Senator who pre- 
ferred this charge did not examine the subject with his usual care. 

Mr. SUMNER. The Senator will bear in mind that I quoted the precise words of 
the tw6 different reports. 

Mr. HARLAN. I am aware of that. 

Mr. SUMNER. Will the Senator be good enough to read the precise words of the 
Secretary of War ? The Senator only read the first part. 

Mr. HAPi.LAN. I will take great pleasure in reading the exact words : and I shall 
not presume, Mr. President, in this discussion, that the honorable Senator from 
Massachusetts is a novice, that he is unfamiliar with the affairs of Government, and 
the transactions of business in the departments of his own Government. I read from 
the eleventh page of the report of the Secretary of War as printed by the Hoase of 
Representatives in Executive Document No. 1, part two, Forty- Second Congress, 
second session ; 

" During the fiscal year small arms and ordnance stores to the amount of $10,000,- 

000 have been sold, and the entire proceeds" 

Mr. SUMNER. Mark, " the entire proceeds." 

Mr. HARLAN. Yes : and the entire proceeds— I desire to emphasize those words 
for the accommodation of the honorable Senator; 

" And the entire proceeds, except a small sum retained to meet expense of prepar' 
ing other arms for sale, have passed into the Treasury beyond the control of this 
Department." 

THE SECRETARY OF WAR THERKON. 

I believe that Is the entire record on that point so far as it Is furnished fiom the 
report of the Secretary of War ; but in the same volume, on page 249, I find the fol- 
lowing language in the appended report of th« chief of ordnance. Before I read this 

1 desire to remind the honorable Senator, of what he doubtless knows, that the re- 
ports of the heads of Departments are made up from the reports of the heads of 
bureaus ; that the chief officer must rely on his subordinates for details. I remember 
once to have heard Mr. Seward say that after he had given the proper officer an order 
to do a thing he felt himself at perfect liberty to report that it had been done, pre- 



6 

sumiug that on an official order having been made by the £-aperior officer to his 
subordinate it would be faithfully obej^ed. When the head of a Department recites 
from the report of his subordinate, equally a sworn officer of the Governmeu'^, he 
surely should be exonerated from any slight deEcrepancy that might afterward ap- 
pear iu the examination of the details. AVhat does the chief of ordnance report on 
this point? These are his words : 

" During the last fiscal year there existed a great demand in Europe fsr smallarms 
and other ordnance stores, and this Department took advantage of it, and sold, at fair 
prices, about ten million dollars' worth of small-arms and other ordnance stores, 
under authority given bv Congress in July, 1868. The pro.eeds of the sales, except 
a small sum which is retainyd to meet expenses incurred in preparing other stores for 
»alc, have passed from the control of this Department and into the Treasury." 

THE CHIEF OF ORDXAKCE. 

This phraseology has been adopted alaiost verbatim by the Secretary of Wa,f, mak- 
iHg it clear that the Secretary's report on this point is made up from the report of the 
chief of ordnance. He simply relied on the reports of the heads of bureaus in making 
H.p his report to the Congress of the United States. But if the honorable Senator had 
iakeu the trouble to read the preceding paragraphs, he would have ascertained what 
the facts were. This report of the sale of arms to'the amount of $10,000,000, as was 
observed by the honorable Senator from New York [Mr. Consling] yesterday, is 
found iu the recitative part of the document. The financial statement was on the 
same page and must have been under the e^ of the Senator if he took the trouble to 
look at the report of the chief of ordnance with a view of ascertaining whether the 
Secretary of War was sustained by his official associates. I find in this financial state- 
ment of the proceeds of sales of arms and ordnance stores the following : 

"Amount of deposits in Treasury not reported to the credit of the appropriations 
on the same date, $99,367.76. . • 

"Amount received since Jane 30, 1870, on account of danaages to arms in hands of 
troops, from sales of arms to officers, and condtmned stores, and from all other 
sources not before mentioned, $9,980,895.97." 

THE TREASURY UKCOUDS. 

These two items, taken together, aggregate over ten millions ; but in the latter is 
included amount received from stoppage of pay of soldiers on account of damage 
done by them to arms iu their own hands, and proceeds of sales of arms to officers, 
and Bome other items not specifically mentioned, which may reduce the amount of 
sales of surplus arms and ordnance stores to Something less than ten millions. 

Now let us turn to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury. I will read from 
the same page from which the honorable Senator makes his citation. He says the 
total amount of credits on account of the sales of arms and ordnance stores is 
$8,286,131.70, but he recites but one item. On th^ same page, and within a few 
imes of the item mentioned, is the following crtdit : 

"On account of national armories, $029,094,72." 

A. few lines further on is the following credit: 

" On account of arms for volunteers and regulars, $2,716.16." 

A few lines lower down, the following ; 

"On account of arming and equipping militia, $2 10, 034- 10." 

Foot these up, add them to the $8,286,131.70, and you will have the sum of 
$9,1&8,926.98. 

But, sir, I am not done yet- In the report of the chitf of ordnance, in connection 
with anil a part of his financial exhibit, is the following explanatory statement: 

"Amount of deposits in the Treasury not reported to the credit of appropriations, 
$i(W,5G7.83." 



Add this to the former and it gives you $9,865,464.81. Is not that near enough to 
$10,000,000 to justify the report of the chief of ordnance that the sales had amounted 
during the fiscal year to about ten millions? 

Mr. SCHURZ. Will the Senator permit me to ask him a question for information? 

Mr. HARLAN. Certainly. 

Mr. SCHURZ. Do the difiPerent items that he has read there belong to the same 
head? 

"line upon line" — THE ITEMS. 

Mr. HARLAN. They are the receipts from the proceeds of sales of ordnance and 
ordnance stores during the fiscal year b^ginning July 1, ISVO, and ending June 30, 
1871. If the honorable Senator will be patient I will satisfy him to the very utmost. 
I have now before me the bock of original entries of funds deposited in the Treasury 
as proceeds of sales of arms and ordnance stores, under the supervision of the chief 
of ordnance, in which every item is entered, with the name of the depositor who had 
control of the i:)roceeds of the sale of each lot of arms sold, the place where the money 
was deposited, the appropriation to which it v/as carried on the books of the Treasury 
or ought to be carried, the amount of each deposit, the date when the statement was 
sent to the Secretary of the Treasury, and also the date of the transfer warrant carry- 
ing it to the head of the proper appropriation. If anybody will take the trouble to 
read over these items as I find them here in the original record for the fiscal yea;; 
ending June 30, 1871, he will find the statement of the Secretary of War and the chief 
of ordnance in their annual reports, from which the honorable Senator read, fully 
sustained. This detailed itemised record of deposits foots up total $9,737,437.77, 
the amount covered into the Treasury, to adopt the langnage of the Department, to 
the credit of the War Department on account of said sales. 

And of this amount, if I have not erred in my computation, the War Department 
was credited on the books of the Treasury, as I find it on the page of the annual report 
from which the honorable Senator read, $9,158,926.98. The residue, amounting to 
six or seven hundred thousand dollars, had nc>t probably, when the annual report waa 
made up at the close of the fiscal year, been carried to the books of the Treasury to 
the head of the proper appropriation, in the exhibit styled "segregated receipts and 
expenditures by warrants," from which the honorable Senator m^e his citation. 

The total amount had been deposited in various Government depositories, for which 
receipts had been taken and entered on the books of the ordnance department, from 
which the Secretary of War made his annual report to Congress. But all of it bad 
not been carried by transfer warrants to the head of the proper account in the state- 
ment of "segregated receipts and expenditures by warrants," when the annual report 
of the Secretary of the Treasury was prepared. Some time must necessarily elapse 
before the entries could be made under the proper heads on the books of the Trea- 
sury, after the transmission of certificates of deposit. The small apparent discrep- 
ancy is thus fully accounted for. I think I am therefore justifiable in concluding that 
the honorable Senator did not examine this subject with his usual care before pre- 
senting his charges. 

Sir, here is a record of our own Department perfectly accessible to every member 
of this body, which the honorable Senator could have seen for himself before he 
drew up his indictment, and thus learned that his surmises had no foundation in fact. 

OMITTINtf THE NAMES OF BIDDERS — A CONCLUSIVE ANSWER. 

But, Mr. President, the honorable Senator, I thought, felt aggrieved at my calling 
in question the correctness of his statement that names of purchasers of arms had 
been omitted from the Secretary's report of sales now under consideration. I stated 
that these supposed purchasers were merely bidders and not purchasers. The Sen- 
ator con^'ronted me with an Associated Press dispatjh. That he may be entirely 
satisfied on this point, I can now famish him the original telegrams, borrowed of the 



8 

Cbief of Ordnance. If I have a correct list of these names of the Senator's supposed 
purchasers, not foUnd in the Secretary's report, they are as follows: 
" Sales under adverlhement, October 17. 

"To 0. Lippincott, one thousand sets horse equipments, at, $5.50 per set. 

" T. E. H.'Pond, at $10.05, for twenty-seven hundred Joslyn carbines. 

" Schuyler, Hartley & Graham, at $20.50 each, for one thousand Spencer carbines 
■with bayonets, and four hundred rounds of ammuniion, at eighteen dollars per 
thousand." 2 

I believe these are the names mentioned by the Senator. Here is one of the tele- ' 
grams, dated October 29, 1S70, addressed to General Dyer, Chief of Ordnance, as 
follows : 

"I offer $5.50 per set for one thousand sets of horse equipments. 

"0. LIPPINCOTT." 

This is the memorandum on the back of the telegram : 

'' Offers $5,60 per set for one thousand sets of horse equipments. 

"Filed; not accepted. October 81, 1870." 

The next one is dated October 29, addressed to the same oflScer : 

" I hereby offer $10.05 each for twenty-seven hundred Joslyn carbineii. 

"E. H. POND." 

On which is indorsed : 

" Offers $10.05 each for twenty-seven hundred Joslyn carbines. 
'.' Filed ; not accepted. October 31, 1870." 

Here is a compound bid including several items, dated October 28, and signed 
" Schuyler. Hartley & Graham," on which I find an indorsement in pencil so blurred 
that I cannot make it out, but I judge it is the same as the others. 

This, then, is the official record of the War Department to confront the reliability 
•fan Associated Press dispatch. I have great respect for -the newspapers •f thig 
country ; it would be difficult for us to do without them ; and yet I do not think a 
member of the Senate, in arraigning the head of a Department, is justifiable in rely- 
ing implicitly upon a newspaper statement when the official record is completely 
wi;hin his reach. I think it is due to the Senator's own Government that he should 
assure himself of the facts by the official record before he brings so grave a 
charge. * 

WHO IXCITES THE CHARGE. 

I stated yesterday that I thought this procedure^ had been incited by the represent- 
atives of the French Government, and that they had been suffi-cienily adroit to draw 
into it a member of this body, for the purpose of enabling them to prosecute a claim 
against one of their own agents. I will now state some of my reasons for this sup- 
position, that we may understand precisely what we are to do, and why we are ex- 
pected to act such a part for the repre:-entatives of a foreign nation. I introduce a 
letter which will throw some light on this subject. The original is in French. I 
will read a translation made at the War Department. I hold the original in my 

hand : 

French Legatiok, Washington, December 26, 1871. 
Marquis: The President having been pleased to permit that the accounts of the 
ordnance should be confidentially communicated to us, in order that we might study 
certain points that remain obscure to us in the purchase -accounts of the intermedi- 
aries who offered themselves to us, I beg you will repair to the War ^Department and » 
make in my name the investigations needed by our Government. You will have the 
goodness to include in the "detailed report to be drawn up for me all the items to 
which I'have already more than once called your attention. 
Picceive, I beg, sir, the assurance of my marked esteem, 

H. DE BELLONNETr, Charge d' Affaires, France, 
Marquis De CHAMBRtix. 

TEE ATTORNEY OF PRANCE AT WORK. 

It would not, I think, be out of place for mje to state here that, armed with this 
communication from the Lead of the French legation, this marquis appeared in the 



War Department and asked to examine these records, and that, on cosUltation with 
the President, it was deemed proper that he should have them, or so much of them as 
might facilitate the examination of their affairs. The Secretary of War of course 
gave the proper directions to the chief of ordnance, and the record was made np as 
rapidly as practicable consistent with the transaction of the current business. But in 
> the meantime, I think very properly concluding that it would be quite as well to in- 
form the Representative of the people of the United States what had been do-ne as to 
inform the representative of the French Government, the Secretary of War by di- 
rection of the President sent the original copy of the record thus made up to the House 
of Representatives, and then notified this marquis that ke would have an opportunity 
to obtain a copy or copies in a very few days. This, it «eems, was not satisfactory. 
The facts as they were recorded on the books of the Department Were not ail that was 
wanted. He desired aid in the prosecution of the supposed delinque-nt employees of 
the F.ench Government, and hence sought the aid of members of the Senate of the 
United States, and they have attempted to drag into this investigation the Senate 
itself. The evidence of that I think will appear from the preamble as well as the text 
ef the resolution itself, now under consideration, if other evidence were not attain- 
able. I read the first paragraph of the preamble ; 

Whereas it appears from a recent cable telegram that the committee of the French 
National A'^sembly on war coLtracts has adopted a resolution asking the United btates 
Government to furnish the result of inquiry into the conduct of American oflicials 
suspectei of participating in the purchase of arms for the French Government during 
the war wiih Germany. t 

THE FRENCH ASSEMBLY CHARGE. 

WTiy did this Assembly presume in advance that this investigation would be ordered? 
It had not been ordered at the date of the adoption of their resolution. They had ob- 
tained assurances that they could obtain copies of the records of the War Department 
so far as ihev related to the purchase of arms, and the record was made outf nd very 
properly published to the whole world through the action of the House of Representa- 
tives of the United States. How is it that the French Government could presume 
that there was to be an investigation of- American officials? Was somebody here in 
communication with them that had given them the assurance that an investigation 
was to be ordered, and after receiving that assurance did they suppose a sufficient 
time had elapsed for the event to have occurred, and hence the call made by them for 
a copy of the proceedings of this supposed court of inquiry or committee of investiga- 
tion? 

Mr. SUMNER. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him there? 
Mr. HARLAN, I will take very great pleasure in hearing any explanation. 
Mr. SUMNER. The Senator certainly reads that resolution of the French Assem- 
bly very differently from myself. 

Mr. HARLAN. I read from the Senator's own resolution, from the preamble to 
his own resolution, and he said it was in his own handwriting when he introduced it, 
and on that account asked to have the privilege .f reading it himself from his o^ 
desk. 

Mr. SUMNER. Very weli. 

Mr. HARLAN. I have a right to presume it was correctly copied. 

Mr. SUMNER. The actual dispatch will be found, in the papers, I think of last 

Friday, and is as follows : • i • u 

" The Assembly committee on war contracts has adopted a resolution askvag the 
United States to famish the result of the inquiry in the conduct of American officuils 
who are suspected of participating in the purchase of arms for the French Govern- 
ment during the war." , i ' r t 

That speaks of what has already occurred so far as I understand, and so far as i 
undestood when I quoted it. This matter has been pending now for weeks, eveo for 
moLihs. I Lave on my table now a document whi^h goes back to last Jane, showtng 



10 

that this subj'ect has occupied attention there, and I presumed that this related to 
inquiries which it was supposed had already been instituted in our country. At any 
rate, I know that no human being had any reason to suppose that I was to move in 
it until I did. 

CARELESSI.'ESS IN ACCUSATICN. 

Mr. HARLAN. That may be, Mr. President ; the honorable Senator may have 
been as careless in copying this telegram as he has been in copying the records of 
our own Government. I read from the indictment as he has prepared it with his own 
hand. He informed the Senate that it was in his own handwriting. I think I was 
justifiable, therefore, in supposing it was as he wished it to be, and I read it as it is 
printed by the Public Printer: 

^Whereas it appears from a recent cable telegram that the committee of the French 
National Assembly on war-contracts has adopted a resolution asking the United 
States Government to furnish the result of inquiry into the conduct of American offi- 
cials suspected of participating in the purchase of arms for the Ji'rench Government 
during the war with Germany. 

If there is any conflict between this phraseology and that of the telegram as it came 
over the lines I am not responsible for it, but I cerceive no substantial difference. 

Mr. SUMNER. There is no conflict. I wish the Senator-to understand that. 

Mr. HARLAN, Then I wonder why I was interrupted. If I am citing the record 
correctly, and there is no necessity for correcting that record by something that is 
more authentic, why was I interrupted? I do not complain of interruption if I mis- 
represent any member of this body. I desire to be interrupted under such circum- 
stances. I would not intentionally misrepresent any human being, surely not a mem- 
ber of this body. 

Mr. SUMNER. The Senator will understand that in my view the Senator inter- 
prets it wrongly, gives a meaning to it which I do not think is candid, and if he in- 
tends to use it in any way against me, I say that it is very uncandid. 

Mr. pARLAN. Well, Mr. President, I do not know that I have a right to repri- 
mand the Senator for unparliamentary language in attributing to me uncandid con- 
duct. I think I am justifiable, and every impartial reader of this record I believe 
will sustain me, in concluding that the French Government had some sufficient reason 
for supposing that an inquiry would be put on foot which had not been inaugurated 
in the United States. Every one may explain this for himself if he can. How they 
obtain this intimation is not for me to explain. 

ANALTZIXG THE CHARGES. 

But in the next place : 

Whereas one Squire — 

I read from the same docutoent — 
agent of Messrs. Remington & Sons, at New York, in a dispatch dated at New York, 
October 8, 1870, addressed to Samuel Remington, at Tours, in France, near the 
Government of National Defense, uses the following language : " We have the strono'- 
est influences working for us, which will use all their efforts to succeed." ° 

Whence came this document? You will perceive that the author of this preamble 
says : • 

Whereas one Squire, agent of Messrs. Remington & Sons, at New York, in a dis- 
patch dated at New York, October 8, 1870, addressed to Samuel Remington, at Tours, 
in France, near the Government of National Defense, uses the following language. 

It is not for me to inquire how the Senator from Massachusetts obtained possession 
•f that document. It will be perceived that it is addressed by one French agent to 
another French agent, both employees of the French Government. Unexplained, I 
think I have a right to infer that somebody was in communication with the French 
Government, and was interested in proeuring official documents from that high au- 
thority. 

But again, the preamble recites : 



11 

Whereas in a leUer dated at New York, December 13, 1S70, addressed by Samuel 
Remir.gton to Jules Le Cesne, 73rcsident of the armanent committee, at Tours, in 
France, the following language is employed : 

Netv York, Dececiber 13, 1870. 

Sir : I have the honor to inform you I have receive! your telegram of the lOtH and 
11th, ordering the number of batteries to be reduced in number to fi^ty, and inform- 
ing me of instructions to the consul regarding the last credit to him of 3,000;0C0 
franca. 

Although at the time of the receipt of the telegram I had bought the whole number, 
one hundred, and had paid the advance required, $200,000, the Government very 
■willingly reduced the number to fifty. '" * -x- * * :c- 

Ilegarding the purchase of Springfields, .(transformed,) Allen's system, I am 
sorry to say the greatest number we may hope to get will not, I fear, exceed forty 
thousand. The Government has never made but about seventy live thousand all told, 
and forty thousand is the greatest number they tliink it prudent to spare. I may be 
able to procure, depending upon an exchange of our arms, at some future time, for 
the number of breech- loadii.g Springfields, over and above forty thousand they are 
willing to let go now. 

This question of an exchange, with the very friendly feeling -I find evisting to aid 
France, I hope to be ab'e to procare more- Cartridges for these ferty thousand will 
in a grea! nif asure require to be made, as the Government have but about three mil- 
lions in hand. But the Government has consented to allow the requisite number, 
four hundred for each gun, to be made, and the cartridge works have had orders, 
given yesterday, to increase production to the lull capacity of works. This quesiion 
of making the cartridges at the Government works was a difficult one t«? get over ; but 
it is done. The price the Government will charge for the guns and cartridges will 

be , or as near that as possible. 

Jules Le CnsNE, Esq., President of Commission Armament, d;c. 

STATEMENTS MADE EY FRSNCn OFFICIALS. 

The first observation I have to make in rela'ion to this letter is this : It is not 
strange that an agent of the French Government should be inclined to puffins own 
importance, and to make the authorities in France think that he was a man of great 
consequence on this side of the water, and could accomplish almost anything he chose. 
Hence the disposition to represent what he did as a very difficult thing, when what 
he represented as having been done for him was being done all the time fof the pur- 
chasers of arms from the Government. Whenever it became necessary, in order to 
perfect a sale, arms were repaired, and a number of rounds of ammunition turned in 
with each arm. There wa3 nothing unusual in it. But be could be pardoned. I ap- 
prehend, for attempting to make the French Government believe that he had done 
some important service for them when probably he was in Paris collecting the pro- 
ceeds of his sale. 

But the pertinent inquiry to whicli I desire to call the attention of the Senate is 
this : whence this document? Vv'here did it originate ? It is here now on the records 
of the Senate. This paragraph of th,e preamble says : 

" Whereas in a letttr dated at New York, December 15. 1870, addressed by Samuel 
Remington" — 

Who is said to be an agent of the Frenck Government — 
"to Jules Le Cesne, president of the armament committee at '^nurs. in France." 

A letter addressed by an agent of the French Government in the United States to 
an agent of the French Government in Tours. The French Government i'S its rightful 
custodian ; it was not sent here through the usual official channels. May I not 
conclude that some reliable party other than the Seoretary of bi,at.e is holding inter- 
course with the French Government : that he has access to their records? And it is 
not probable that Remington would furnish this record, since he is the man, as I 
infer, whom they intend to prosecute. I. think I may fairly infer, therefore, that it 
has been furnished by authority of the French Government for some purpose val- 
uable to that nation. But we see it in the Senate of the LTnited States as a part of a 
preamble to a resolution of inquirj^ into the conxluct of the officials of our own 
Government. 



12 



LETTER OP SECRETARY BEtK><'AP. 



Once more the preamble recites ; m 

Whereas the Secretary of War, under date of January 19, 1872, addressed the fol- 
lowing communication to the Secretary of State : * 

War Department, Washington City, January 19, 1872. » 
Sir: I have tie honor to acknowledge the receipt of a note from you of the 4th 
instant, inclosing, by France, a copy of a letter from Mr. Remington to the president 
of the commission of armament at Tours, containing a series of allegations in regard 
to the purchase of arms, &c- 

The first of these allegations which seem to require specific replies is, "cartidges 
fbr these forty thousand will in a great measure require to be made, as request of 
Mr. de Bellonnet, charge d'affaires of the Government, have but about three million 
on hand, but the Government has consented to allow the requisite number, four hun- 
dred for each gun, to be made, and the cartridge- works have orders (given yesterday) 
to increase production to the full capacity 9f the works. This question of rnaking 
the cartridges at the Government works was a difficult one to get over ; but it was 
done." 

• In reply to that allegation, I have to say that on the 13th of December, 1870, cart- 
ridges necessary to supply about two hundred rounds per gun to ths model 1866 
breech- loaders sold Thomas Richardson were ordered to be manufactured at the 
Frankford Arsenal, and this number of cartridges was necessary to effect the sale of 
the arms. The Messrs. Remington & Sons did not buy any arms or ammunition 
from this Department after about the middle of October, 1870, nor would any bid 
from them for such articles have been entertained by the United States subsequent 
to that date. 

To the second prominent allegation which is contained in the paper purporting to 
be a copy of a telegram from Squire to Remington, and which is herewith returned, 
I have the honor to reply that this Department has no knowledge of any influence 
exerted in favor of, or for the success of, any transaction between the United States 
and Mr. Squire for himself or Messrs. Remington & Sons. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. W. BELKNAP, Secretanj of War. 

To the*honorable the Secretary of State. 

It would seem from this document that this matter had become a subject of inquiry 
by the French Government, and that application was very properly made to the State 
Department for information ; that the letter of inquiry was referred to the Secretary 
of War 5 and this letter purports to be the response of the Secretary of War, from 
which it will be seen that he states that no arms were sold to Remington after it was 
known to the Department that he was the agent of the French Government ; and 
he also states^ that he knows of no person who was entitled to the eacomium pro- 
nounced by Mr. Remington upon himself as having great influence in that Depart- 
ment or in connection with our Government. 

HOW WAS this letter obtained? 

But this is not the main point of my inquiry in this connection. Whence d^d this 
letter proceed ? It purports to be a letter written by the Secretary of War of the 
United States to the Secretary of State of the United States ; and I state here that I 
have it from the lips of the Secretary of War that he has .furnished no copy to any- 
body, and I read this moirning a letter from the Secretary of State, addressed to the 
Secretary of War, stating that he had furnished no copy except the one communicated 
by him to the French legation. There are, therefore, three authorized copies in ex- 
istence, the office copy in the War Department, the original letter sent to the Secre- 
tary of State, and a copy transmitted by the Secretary of State to the French legation 
near our Government, and yet we find it as a part of the preamble to this resolution 
proposing investigation of the conduct of the high officials of our Government. 

The honorable Senator from Massachusetts is not unfamiliar with the intercourse 
of naticns with each other, and the rules that ought to control it. He would be the 
Wery first man to rebuke a breach of official etiquette had it been perpetrated by. any- 



13 

body else. Somebody unautkorized by our Governmeiit has put himself in coninia- 
nication wilK the representative of the French Government in. order to obtain infor- 
mation to be used sgainstlhe head of a Department of his own Government. 

I am not quite through yet. I read again from the preamble-: 

Whereas it appears from these sever?! commur.ications, not only that_ arms were 
sold, but that ammuniticn was manufactured in the workshops of the Un ited btates 
Govercment and sold* to one Thomas Richardson, the known attorney of Messrs. 
Remington & Sons, whtn the bids of the latter had been thrown out lOr the reason 
that they were the agents of the French Government. 

I read this paragraph from the preamble for this purpose ; I cannot believe that the 
honorable Senator from Massachusetts would intentionally misrepresent a fact, and 
yet I submit to his candor whether he has not done so in this paragraph. He says 
'•the known attorney of Messrs. Remington & S.-ns." Kno-yn to whom and by 
whom as the attorney of the Remingtons ? The fair implication is that the honorable 
Senator from Massachusetts intended to make the impression that the Secretary ot 
Yv'^ar knew that Richaidson was the attorney of Remington. 

Mr. CONKLIKG. Of course it was of no consequence unless he knew it. 

Mr. HARLAN. And yet we have in the letter which the honorable Senator him- 
self publishes over the ofiicial signature of the Secretary oi War, the statemeat that 
he had sold no arms to any known agent of the French Government, and as far as the 
proof adduced up to this period there is no evickjnce to the contrary, except iho naked 
statement of this preamble and the reiteration of it in the honorable Senator's speech. 
If there is such evidence, is it net iair to conclude that it has been derived from that 
fountain ot information to which I have'previously referred? 

TUE ACCUSEU'S SOURCES Ot'' IXFORMATI ON- 

Once more I read from the preamble : 

Whorcas a comparison of the accounts rendered by the French Government for 
moneys expended by its agents in the purchase of arms from the United bcates, ar.d 
the accounts rendered by the Government of the United States for moneys received m 
the same transaction show a large difference, which seems to have given rise to the 
suspicion abroad that United States officials have taken an undue partHherem. 

I have sufBclently shown, I think, that the allegation of discrepancy is not well 
founded, and I call the attention of the Senate to this paragraph for the purpose of 
iuquiring where is that French record which has been compared with the record at 
the War Department, and who made the comparison? I have not been sufficiently 
fortunate to\ee a copy of the French report, or the original Where can it be ob- 
tained? It may be remembered by Senators that I pressed this point yesterday, and 
asked the honorable Senator from Massachusetts to state by wkom this comparison 
had been made. He said it had been made by a bookkeeper, aad declined to give 
the name of the expert. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Wh,o employed him to do it? 

Mr. HARLAN. That is a very pertinent question. Who employed him to make 
the examination ; and where is the French record ; and where was this examination 
made ; and who has furnished the French record in order that this comparison might 
be made between that record and the record of the War Department? Is it not very 
clear that somebody is in unofficial con:muuication with the French Goverment? 

Mr. SUMNER. Why, Mr. President, I held the record in my hand yesterday. It 
is the 'report of M. Riant which will be found in the official journal of the French Re- 
public of June 28— money paid by France. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Will the Senator from Massachusetts hand me fHat statement? 

Mr. SUMNER. Certaialy. 



14 

Mr. HAULAN. Another newspaper statement recited on the floor of the Ameri- 
can Senate, by the oldest member of this body as the French record 1 An attempt 
made to impugn the ofBcial records of his own Government by an extract from a 
newspaper published in France I 

Mr. EDMUNDS. This is the New York Sun. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HAULAN. Still worse, if that be within the range of moral possibility. 

Mr. SUMNER. The Senator will bear in mind that it is a report of a French officer 
published in the French official jaurnal. 

Mr. HARLAN. Copied in the Sun. 

Mr. SUMNER. Copied in the Sun. 

Mr. CONKLING. Which "shines for alL" [Laughter.] 

Mr. HARLAN. Very well. Now we know the source of the information. Somebody 
in France has published what he calls the French record, or is supposed to have done 
it, and it finds its way into an American newspaper by the name of the Sun. Whether 
that is sufficient authority for the grave arraignment of a high official of our Govern- 
ment by an American Senator I leave for the American people to decide. If he had 
no other means of information, no other source of evidence, no reliable witness to 
verify a newspaper statement, be must decide for himself whether that justifies him 
in bringing in this arraignment. 

IKQUSITORIAL AKD DOCBTFUL PROPOSITION. 

But I am not quite through yet. I come now to the text of the resolution itself: 

Resolved, That a select committee of seven be appointed to investigate all sales of 
ordnance stores made by the Government of the United States duringthewaj between 
France and Germany; to ascertain the persons to whom such sales were made, the 
circumstances under which they were made, and the real parties in interest, and the 
sums respectively paid and received by the real parties ; and that the committee have 
power to send for persons and papers ; and that the investigation be conducted in 
public. 

A part of the inquiry thus proposed, it seems to me, would be legitimate ; but if 
the object is merely to ascertain whether American officials have been guilty of mal- 
feasance or misfeasance in office, why is this inquiry to be confined to the exact period 
of the duration «f the war between France and Germany? Why is it to be narrowed 
down to a few months, and the inquiry confined to the sales and circums^^ances of 
sales during that brief period, if there is no ulterior object? 

But again, this committee is to be instructed to ascertain the persons to whom such 
sales were made. That, I think, would be legitimate and proper. "The circum- 
stances under which they were made" — a perfectly appropriate inquiry; "and the 
real parties in interest." That raises my euspicion. Why should we care whether 
the purchaser were a purchaser en his own account or on commission for somebody 
else? Is it any matter of interest to the Government of the United States whether 
the merchant be a merchant on his own account or a commission merchant? And 
once more: "and the sums respecttively paid and received by the real parties." 

I can perceive why we should want to know the exact sums paid by the purchasers 
to our Government ; but why should we inquire into the respective sums received by 
the purchasers from their consignee ? Here the proposed committee is required by 
this resolution to inquire what sales were made, to whom they were made, the cir- 
cumstances of the sales, and the amount received by our Government, all of which 
would be legitimate, but in addition the resolutien demands that the committee shall 
ascertain what the purchaser did with his goods* what he received when he sold them. 
And here you have the animus. It is said that "truth will out." Here, then, in the 
very text of the resolution itself, is internal evidence of the motive of this inquiry. 
Chambrun, the agent or aittache of the French legation here, and as stated in debate 
the attorney for France, desires to prosecute Remington <& Sons for some claim that 
the French Government profess to hold against this firm, and in order to do so suc- 
ccFsfnlly it, is important for them to find o:^t of whom he purchased and what ho raid. 



15 

They wish to trace the goods from his hands back through all intermediates to the first 
vender. And this resolution has been carefully worded so as to enable them to ac- 
complish it through the instrumentality of the Senate committee. They want the 
whole record made up in order to see whether Remington & Sons are honest men or 
not, whether they accounted honorably to the French Government, their employers, 
in their supposed traHsactions. I inquire whether it is proper for the Senate of the 
United States to lend itself to the French legation for such a purpose? 

WHO ASSAILS Ot:R HONOR. 

I am aware the honorable Senator from Massachusetts made an appeal yesterday in 
favor of this investigation, on the ground that suspicions had been thrown out against 
the Government of the United States, insisting that it ought to exonerate itself. Sir, 
has it come to this, that individuals and Government must prove themselves honest by 
means of an investigating csmmittee? I had supposed that the reverse was the cor- 
rect rule as understood in the courts of the country, as well as in morals. The indi- 
vidual who brings a charge against another must prove it, or suffer in his own reputa- 
tion. It is his business 1o make good his charge. The innocence of the assailed is 
•taken for granted. The hoaor of our Government must be presumed. It is the busi- 
ness of the assailant to show fraud, and not an obligation, either legal or moral, on 
the Government of the United States to show that it is honest. 

A REMEDY IN OUR COURTS. 

But, sir, there would be some apology for this proposed inquiry for the benefit of 
France if the French Government were totally without means of redress, if there were 
no other accessible mode of inquiry, if the ends of justice might be defeated should 
the Senate refuse to engage in this humiliating inquiry. But this is not true. In the 
second section of the third article of the Constitution of the United States will be 
found the following language ; 

" The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this 
Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, 
under their authority ; to all cases affecting embassadors, other public ministers, and 
consuls ; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction ; t® controversies to 
whifeh the United States shall be a party ; to controversies between two or more 
States ; between a State and citizens of another State ; between citizens of different 
States ; between citizens of the same State claiming lands under gi^ants of different 
States, and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or 
subjects." 

It will be seen from this section of the Constitution of the United States that the 
judicial power is extended to cases arising " between a State, or the citizens thereof, 
and foreign States, citizens or subjecti." 

I apprehend it will be conceded by everjbody that if the Government of France 
has a just claim against Remington & Sons on contract, it can bring suit for it and 
recover in the courts of the United States. Probably nobody will call this in ques- 
tion. If anybody should doubt it, I might cite the records of the proceedings of the 
Supreme Court of the United States itself in a very recent case, and as it is a French 
case, perhaps I shall be justifiable in citing it. 

The Sapphire, (11 Wallace, 164,) decided at the December term, 1870, of the 
United States Supreme Court, was a suit brought by the Emperor Napoleon III in 
admiralty. Pending the suit he was deposed and the new Government continued to 
prosecute the claim. It was held that the Constitution authorizes a foreign State to 
sue in the United States courts, and that as the Emperor Napoleon was only a repre- 
sentative of the French nation, the suit did not abate by his deposition. The Court 
also refer to the numerous suits brought by our Government in the English courts 
since the rebellion. 

It will be seen that I ana not wrong in supposing that the French Governmeni is 
not without means of redress. It has brought suits in oar courts heretofore. They 
have availed themselves in other cases. The one I have cited was commenced in the 



16 

name of Napoleon III. It was prosecuted to a successful issue by his successor. 
Now, I inquire again, why shall the American Senate lend itself to the French lega- 
tion near our Government for the purpose of enabling them to prosecute a claim 
successfully against one of the agents of the French Government, a resident in and 
a citizen of a State of the Union? Why not remit them to their rights In the courts 
nnder our law, where we have been compelled to go" ourselves when we have had 
claims against the subjects of other Governments? 
Mr. EDMUNDS. We brought one suit in France in the court of cassation. 

THE REAL MOTIVES FO^ THE CHARGES. 

Mr. HARLAN. 1 am now informed by the honorable Senator from Vermont that 
we have brought suits in the courts of France. If our Govtrnment is compelled to 
approach the portals of the courts of France and England and other great Powers for 
the purpose of securing redress against private parties who may have wronged this 
Government, why should the Senate stoop to make itself the prosecuting attorney f«r 
the representative of the French Government, when it may be desirable on the part 
of the Government to prosecute a delinquent agent? The whole animus of this trans- 
action is perfectly clear, if it has no political significance. An intimation made in 
this debate that this proposed inquiry had probably some political significance, it was 
repelled by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts in terms so positive as to 
amount almost to a rebuke. That he had no such purpose whatever, is therefore 
settled. This is clear from the manner in which he repelled the intimation. Then, 
if it is not brought forward for the purpose of weakening the Administration, if there 
was no political purpose underlying this transaction, then I must suppose I have girea 
the correct solution. I am sustained in this conclusion by the personal interest man- 
ifested by the members of the legation to which I have referred, if indeed such sup- 
port were needed. 

Does not the real motive crop out in every paragraph of this preamble ? Does it 
not crop out in the official papers that are copied, or which purport to have beem 
copied ? Does it not crop out in the very language of the resolution itself? It is to 
aid France in prosecuting Remington. France has access to our courts. Let France, 
if she has a causc,«go into the courts. Let France go where citizens of the United 
States are compelled to go. Let France go where States of this Union have to go 
when they ha-ve causes of complaint against each other. Let France go where the 
Government of the United States has to go when it has cause of complaint against 
subjects of other Powers. Let us remit the French to their legal rights before our 
legal tribunals, and their wrongs will be righted, if they have wrongs to redress. I 
would feel humbled as a member of this Senate, if it should lend itself for such a 
purpose. I can vote for this resolution if stripped of its preamble, and so corrected 
in phraseology as to confine it to a legitimate parliamentary inquiry. Not because I 
believe such inquiry necessary to correct any exbting wrong. I do not doubt that 
both Departments, War and Treasury, are honestly administered. I shall bo vote to 
Avoid public misapprehension. 



LIBRPRY OF CONGRESS 

liii 

013 789 093 8 



L 



UBBARVOFCO^ 



013 789 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



ii iiiii'iiiii"" ■" 
013 789 093 8 



P6i^imlipe« 



